Fresh pet food has become an important driver of pet food retail sales growth. So much so that pet food sales in the U.S. and other developed markets would barely be growing or stagnant, reported Petfood Industry. Frozen and refrigerated pet foods increased overall dog food growth by more than 1%, according to Packaged Facts, “Pet Food in the US, 19th Edition.” However, as fresh pet food grows, its marketing claims may be eroding trust in conventional formats.
In a literature review, researchers examined three of the most prevalent claims used by fresh pet food brands: that additives and preservatives are inherently harmful, that human-grade ingredients are superior, and that whole or minimally processed ingredients deliver greater nutritional benefits.
“We assessed the scientific evidence supporting each claim and evaluated their potential health impacts on dogs and cats,” the researchers wrote in the journal Animals.
Additives and preservatives not harmful
The review examined 60 studies on additives and 39 studies on preservatives used in pet food. The researchers’ analysis found risk differences near zero for both categories, indicating no measurable increase in adverse health outcomes when approved additives and preservatives were used within established regulatory limits. The potential health problems evaluated included gastrointestinal effects, toxicity markers, behavioral changes, immune response and death of the pets. However, most studies reported neutral or even beneficial effects. Where adverse reactions were noted, they were generally mild, transient and not clearly attributable to the ingredient itself.
To the contrary, functional additives such as probiotics, omega-3 fatty acids, enzymes, fibers and antioxidants were frequently associated with improvements in digestibility, gut health markers or metabolic indicators. These findings were consistent across dogs and cats and across multiple additive types.
Processing outcomes vary by ingredient and method
To assess claims related to minimal processing, the review evaluated 102 comparisons related to digestibility and 137 comparisons related to nutrient retention. Results showed significant variability, with both beneficial and detrimental effects reported depending on the ingredient type and processing method used. Some processing methods improved protein digestibility, reduced antinutrients or enhanced bioavailability, while others reduced heat-sensitive nutrients. Processing intensity alone was not a reliable predictor of nutritional outcomes.
The findings suggest that ingredient format and processing approach were more influential than whether an ingredient was marketed as “whole,” “raw” or “processed.”
Limited evidence comparing human-grade and feed-grade ingredients
Only six studies met the review’s criteria for direct comparisons between human-grade and feed-grade ingredients. These studies were limited by small sample sizes, inconsistent definitions and elevated risk of bias. Where safety parameters were measured, most feed-grade ingredients fell within acceptable contaminant thresholds for animal consumption. Nutritional comparisons showed mixed results, with no consistent differences in digestibility, nutrient density or health outcomes.
The researchers concluded that current evidence is insufficient to establish a clear nutritional or safety advantage for human-grade ingredients.
Formulation controls and safety important
Across all three claim areas, the review found that food safety and nutritional adequacy were most consistently associated with formulation controls, ingredient testing and adherence to established nutrient standards. Processing and sourcing choices influenced self-life, storage requirements and nutrient stability, but did not inherently determine product safety or health outcomes.
“Pet food companies should ensure that all marketing claims are backed with accessible and peer-reviewed scientific evidence before conveying them to consumers, allowing for informed decisions to be made,” the researchers wrote. “Minimally processed diets should be assessed against identical ingredient matrices or similar formulations to draw more conclusive evidence. Likewise, these studies necessitate larger sample sizes to sufficiently power the analytical tests to statistical significance. Comprehensive prospective studies are needed to establish whether processing intensity causally affects long-term health outcomes in companion animals across their lifespan, employing standardized outcome measures and controlling for ingredient composition, nutritional intake, and variability between pets.”
